SC bench on presidential reference says it is only giving advisory view, not sitting in appeal over governor timelines ruling

Time of India

15 hours ago

New Delhi: The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, presiding over a presidential reference case on whether the
Supreme court
can lay down timelines and procedures for the President and state governors, on Tuesday verbally remarked that it was only sitting in an "advisory jurisdiction" and not in appeal over the judgement by a division bench which laid down the timelines.
"We will be expressing just a view on law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," the CJI verbally told counsels for the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu who raised preliminary objections to the
president's reference
on grounds of maintainability.
"We are in advisory jurisdiction; we are not in appellate (jurisdiction). In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgement does not lay down correct law but it will not overrule the judgement," said justice Surya Kant, part of the five member Constitution bench.
However, solicitor general
Tushar Mehta
appearing for the Centre cited a judicial precedent to contend that the top court can even overrule a judgement in advisory jurisdiction. Mehta argued that the instant case is a "sui generis (unique) case. The court can even overrule the judgement". At this, CJI Gavai orally responded: "A view can be overruled, not decision."
The bench also orally remarked that it found nothing wrong in the president seeking the advice of the top court on the issue. "When the Honourable president is seeking views of this court, what is wrong in that," CJI Gavai remarked.
Live Events
Appearing on behalf of the Centre, attorney general
R Venkataramani
questioned the apex court's April ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures.
The AG argued: "Can the court go to the extent where it says let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution?"
Speaking for the bench, Justice PS Narasimha orally remarked: "See the egregious situation where it had come to... It was to remedy that situation that the court stepped in... The bills were pending for so long." The senior SC judge was referring to bills pending with the Tamil Nadu governor for a long period of time.
The AG argued that the judgement had created "functional disharmony" and resulted in a "constitutional functional problem". The AG added that no deadline can be imposed on the president or governors to decide on bills passed by a state legislature.
On May 15, in a rare move, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to send a reference to the SC following its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. In her reference, the President posed 14 questions to the court and sought its opinion on whether such deadlines could be imposed judicially.